Remember me
▼ Content

whats warming the world



Page 1 of 212>
whats warming the world28-09-2016 20:01
spot
★★★★☆
(1204)
fancy graphic showing what is affecting climate;
http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/
28-09-2016 20:22
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5183)
spot wrote: fancy graphic showing what is affecting climate;
http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/


DRKTS already created a thread for this and you posted in that thread.

http://www.climate-debate.com/forum/what-is-driving-global-warming-d6-e1160.php#post_10652

It's all part of the snake oil series.



.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
28-09-2016 20:30
spot
★★★★☆
(1204)
So snake oil is facts now? Why are you so desperate to shout down whats happening?
28-09-2016 20:34
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5183)
spot wrote: So snake oil is facts now? Why are you so desperate to shout down whats happening?

Shout down? Who has been shouted down?

Oh wait! Is "shout down" the Marxist warmizombie hijacked word of the day? Is anyone who disagrees with your WACKY religious dogma "shouting down" your religion?

Dumbass.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
28-09-2016 20:45
spot
★★★★☆
(1204)
So facts are Marxist now? I've got news for you the rest of the world has stopped worrying about reds under the bed. When senator Joseph McCarthy died did they send word to your village? the 1950s are over dude.
28-09-2016 21:21
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10157)
spot wrote:
So facts are Marxist now? I've got news for you the rest of the world has stopped worrying about reds under the bed. When senator Joseph McCarthy died did they send word to your village? the 1950s are over dude.


Is that why so many people are arguing to push communism these days?

Get yer head out from under a rock, dumbass.


The Parrot Killer
28-09-2016 21:45
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5183)
spot wrote:So facts are Marxist now? I've got news for you the rest of the world has stopped worrying about reds under the bed. When senator Joseph McCarthy died did they send word to your village? the 1950s are over dude.

Well, your logic hasn't improved any over the last hour, that is certain.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
28-09-2016 22:28
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
There's nothing wrong with Marxism.

IB is calling you Marxist, spot, not the alleged "facts".
28-09-2016 22:58
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10157)
jwoodward48 wrote:
There's nothing wrong with Marxism.

IB is calling you Marxist, spot, not the alleged "facts".


There is plenty wrong with Marxism. I've already discussed why.


The Parrot Killer
28-09-2016 23:35
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Because it will inevitably decay into State Capitalism? Yeah, no.

Marxism doesn't support "big government". You are pointing out flaws in "big government," or in State Capitalism. Russia was State Capitalist. So is China. They are not socialist if they still have money, the state, or classes. I don't see anything like that. I think the only societies like that, the only true socialist entities, were small communities.

In case you say "well i never said that", here's some quotes:

Communism makes that leader the government. Despite not knowing anything about the technology, the markets, the needs of the consumers, they build the factory and install their people in it to manage the place.


It cannot function because you can't build and operate a factory without having someone directing operations. Communal factories (if they get built at all) never get around to really producing anything much. The second problem is the marketplace itself.


1. There's a difference between someone allocating jobs and resources according to the will of the people, and an owner. Pretty big difference. If we need someone to be "in charge," we can have their actions reflect what the people want. But I don't think we need someone in charge. Someone in charge of managing the day-to-day resources? Maybe. But they wouldn't have any authority compared to the people.

2. Do you have any data on that, or did you just pull "communal factories don't work" from your head, made out of whole cloth, et cetera et cetera?

Since no one can own anything, there is nothing you can use of value to trade for anything else. Money in that sense is essentially a worthless idea, since money is just a medium of exchange instead of direct barter.

Money or any other trade of value can only be set by price discovery. The only price discover taking place at all with such a commune is by outside trade (international trade). That means capitalism is what sets the prices, no matter how you slice it.


But there is no money!

Initially, that's true. Read my post again. You will see how the stateless commune eventually results in a leader, a State, and a government. It must, because the Utopia cannot provide for everyone's desires.


But it doesn't result in a state! Not when done well! And besides, Russia never was free of a state. How can you claim that Russia passed through socialism if it never stopped having a state, classes, and money?


All denominations of Marxism have a State which is "the people."


Yay, it's time to argue about definitions again. *sigh* Or we could use my definitions for once, although this time you have actually substantiated claims that they are Evil Marxist Definitions, unlike before...

I'm feeling more anarcho-syndicalist than communist now anyway. Can't really see a large difference between them, it's more a flavour of communism than anything else. Mostly "communism, with the democratic part emphasized and unions."
Edited on 28-09-2016 23:40
29-09-2016 02:13
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10157)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Because it will inevitably decay into State Capitalism? Yeah, no.

Marxism doesn't support "big government". You are pointing out flaws in "big government," or in State Capitalism. Russia was State Capitalist. So is China. They are not socialist if they still have money, the state, or classes. I don't see anything like that. I think the only societies like that, the only true socialist entities, were small communities.

In case you say "well i never said that", here's some quotes:

Communism makes that leader the government. Despite not knowing anything about the technology, the markets, the needs of the consumers, they build the factory and install their people in it to manage the place.


It cannot function because you can't build and operate a factory without having someone directing operations. Communal factories (if they get built at all) never get around to really producing anything much. The second problem is the marketplace itself.


1. There's a difference between someone allocating jobs and resources according to the will of the people, and an owner. Pretty big difference. If we need someone to be "in charge," we can have their actions reflect what the people want. But I don't think we need someone in charge. Someone in charge of managing the day-to-day resources? Maybe. But they wouldn't have any authority compared to the people.

2. Do you have any data on that, or did you just pull "communal factories don't work" from your head, made out of whole cloth, et cetera et cetera?

Since no one can own anything, there is nothing you can use of value to trade for anything else. Money in that sense is essentially a worthless idea, since money is just a medium of exchange instead of direct barter.

Money or any other trade of value can only be set by price discovery. The only price discover taking place at all with such a commune is by outside trade (international trade). That means capitalism is what sets the prices, no matter how you slice it.


But there is no money!

Initially, that's true. Read my post again. You will see how the stateless commune eventually results in a leader, a State, and a government. It must, because the Utopia cannot provide for everyone's desires.


But it doesn't result in a state! Not when done well! And besides, Russia never was free of a state. How can you claim that Russia passed through socialism if it never stopped having a state, classes, and money?


All denominations of Marxism have a State which is "the people."


Yay, it's time to argue about definitions again. *sigh* Or we could use my definitions for once, although this time you have actually substantiated claims that they are Evil Marxist Definitions, unlike before...

I'm feeling more anarcho-syndicalist than communist now anyway. Can't really see a large difference between them, it's more a flavour of communism than anything else. Mostly "communism, with the democratic part emphasized and unions."


I do not pull things out of my head from nowhere. Please don't go there again...first warning.

Marx wanted to see the workers run the show. In every case where it has been tried throughout history, however, it has failed miserably. I have analyzed these failures and have seen the process of each doesn't vary much. I have tried to describe this process to you, but you tend to pick out generalities from details of differences.

This type of error, which is a compositional error, is the same method you used (and are still using to some degree) with the global warming argument. This technique is a fallacy, and should be avoided.

I gave a description where the dream of the communal Utopia promised by Marx typically progresses to a 'State capitalism' as you call it, often with the State becoming more brutal as unhappy people who once believed in the Utopia find it's not being realized.

Since you reject my description, I ask you now to turn to the pages of history. This is where illiteracy is affecting you again. You need to learn this stuff to learn why Marx was wrong.

I tried to make is simple for you. I hope you don't have to learn the lesson the hard way. The cost to you will be dear and I would rather no have to see you pay it.

If one tries to implement it in this country, I for one will fight it every way I can...violently, if I have to. I sincerely hope I don't have to.

I think you had better study this and do some serious naval gazing to at least try to understand why I and many others will fight it like this.


The Parrot Killer
29-09-2016 02:37
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Into the Night wrote:
I do not pull things out of my head from nowhere. Please don't go there again...first warning.


Sorry, got a bit upset there.

Marx wanted to see the workers run the show. In every case where it has been tried throughout history, however, it has failed miserably. I have analyzed these failures and have seen the process of each doesn't vary much. I have tried to describe this process to you, but you tend to pick out generalities from details of differences.

This type of error, which is a compositional error, is the same method you used (and are still using to some degree) with the global warming argument. This technique is a fallacy, and should be avoided.


No, I am not committing the fallacy of composition when I say that socialism can work. Showing that it usually doesn't work does not disprove my statement that it is possible for it to work.

Me: Some A are B.
You: Some A are ~B.

We are both true when we say that. You try to generalize that to "socialism can never work" (which is the ~ of "some socialism can work"). That appears to me to be a fallacy of composition.

I gave a description where the dream of the communal Utopia promised by Marx typically progresses to a 'State capitalism' as you call it, often with the State becoming more brutal as unhappy people who once believed in the Utopia find it's not being realized.


How does "somebody has the authority to carry out the people's will" turn into "there is a government with power not directly obtained from the people"?

Since you reject my description, I ask you now to turn to the pages of history. This is where illiteracy is affecting you again. You need to learn this stuff to learn why Marx was wrong.


Dude? Stop that. You are using that to strike at me emotionally. Don't you claim that this is a factual statement.

Furthermore, "some x are not y" =/= "no x is y". Basic logic.

I tried to make is simple for you. I hope you don't have to learn the lesson the hard way. The cost to you will be dear and I would rather no have to see you pay it.


...what lesson, what cost? Is this a veiled threat? A statement of the inevitability of arseholes elevating peaceful changes to violence?

If one tries to implement it in this country, I for one will fight it every way I can...violently, if I have to. I sincerely hope I don't have to.

I think you had better study this and do some serious naval gazing to at least try to understand why I and many others will fight it like this.


1. Naval gazing sounds like boat watching. Seems fun.
2. Yes, I realize you meant navel gazing.

If I attempt to change America through peaceful legislation, and you fight back violently, I can't see how you'd be justified. (You do realize that's why most political terrorists do what they do, right?)


"Heads on a science
Apart" - Coldplay, The Scientist

IBdaMann wrote:
No, science doesn't insist that, ergo I don't insist that.

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
29-09-2016 03:15
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10157)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
I do not pull things out of my head from nowhere. Please don't go there again...first warning.


Sorry, got a bit upset there.

Marx wanted to see the workers run the show. In every case where it has been tried throughout history, however, it has failed miserably. I have analyzed these failures and have seen the process of each doesn't vary much. I have tried to describe this process to you, but you tend to pick out generalities from details of differences.

This type of error, which is a compositional error, is the same method you used (and are still using to some degree) with the global warming argument. This technique is a fallacy, and should be avoided.


No, I am not committing the fallacy of composition when I say that socialism can work. Showing that it usually doesn't work does not disprove my statement that it is possible for it to work.

Me: Some A are B.
You: Some A are ~B.

We are both true when we say that. You try to generalize that to "socialism can never work" (which is the ~ of "some socialism can work"). That appears to me to be a fallacy of composition.

I gave a description where the dream of the communal Utopia promised by Marx typically progresses to a 'State capitalism' as you call it, often with the State becoming more brutal as unhappy people who once believed in the Utopia find it's not being realized.


How does "somebody has the authority to carry out the people's will" turn into "there is a government with power not directly obtained from the people"?

Since you reject my description, I ask you now to turn to the pages of history. This is where illiteracy is affecting you again. You need to learn this stuff to learn why Marx was wrong.


Dude? Stop that. You are using that to strike at me emotionally. Don't you claim that this is a factual statement.

Furthermore, "some x are not y" =/= "no x is y". Basic logic.


You are presuming there are some cases where communism has worked. There is none. There is no case you can show me where such a system works without causing the problems I have mentioned.

This isn't a logic problem. It's a history problem.



jwoodward48 wrote:
I tried to make is simple for you. I hope you don't have to learn the lesson the hard way. The cost to you will be dear and I would rather no have to see you pay it.


...what lesson, what cost? Is this a veiled threat? A statement of the inevitability of arseholes elevating peaceful changes to violence?


No. A statement of the inevitability of arseholes that take over the path to Utopia because U topia cannot supply the wants of every member of the commune. Learning this lesson the hard way means you will suffer this process yourself, losing everything you have including the freedoms and liberty you now enjoy. The cost is what you will have to pay to escape it.

I would rather you learn from history so you don't have to repeat it yourself.


jwoodward48 wrote:
If one tries to implement it in this country, I for one will fight it every way I can...violently, if I have to. I sincerely hope I don't have to.

I think you had better study this and do some serious naval gazing to at least try to understand why I and many others will fight it like this.


1. Naval gazing sounds like boat watching. Seems fun.
2. Yes, I realize you meant navel gazing.

If I attempt to change America through peaceful legislation, and you fight back violently, I can't see how you'd be justified. (You do realize that's why most political terrorists do what they do, right?)


Terrorism is a part of war. It's purpose is to instill in the mind of an enemy the fear to continue the battle.

The terrorist you read about in the paper is an enemy combatant attempting to force their religion on other nations. In this case, terrorism is a poor tactic, since you cannot change one's beliefs that way.

To implement communism in the United States means throwing out the Constitution of the United States of America, the dissolution of the States and their constitutions, theft of private property, and the loss of liberty.

I am perfectly justified in defending the republic by any and all means possible.

Nothing prevents you from forming a commune of your own on your own property. I will even defend your right to do so. Nothing, however, gives you the right to subvert the United States of America or any State in that Union, or to replace their constitutions with your own form of government (or lack thereof).


The Parrot Killer
29-09-2016 03:52
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Someone hasn't heard of "amendments". I'll let you in on a little secret: The Constitution can CHANGE. If 3/4 of the states ratify it (or something along those lines), it's legal. It's modifying it greatly, maybe, but legal only works so far as "does it align with the higher-up laws?" There is no higher power. The Constitution just is legal. It's impossible for it not to be.

Furthermore, I would deny to all the right to exploit others. That is not a right that should be upheld. The "right" to owning things, also - where did that come from? It is necessary within capitalism. Not so in socialism.
29-09-2016 13:26
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5183)
jwoodward48 wrote:Furthermore, I would deny to all the right to exploit others.

You certainly like to hijack words and to not define your key terms.

I am imagining a jwoodward48 amendment to the Constitution repealing the Exploitation Amendment...oh wait, there isn't one. Oh well, nevermind, I'm imagining your amendment as the "2nd Prohibition" outlawing exploitation.

I then imagine all the resulting lawsuits accusing Walmart of offering people jobs, none brought about by any Walmart employees. Walmart goes under and all Walmart employees are out of work.

I then imagine all the resulting lawsuits against petroleum companies and gasoline stations for "exploiting the American consumer."

I then imagine all the lawsuits against buyers on Craigslist for exploiting the seller's situation.

Exploit. Yeah, you have winner there.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
29-09-2016 22:11
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Nobody's even tried to refute my claim that the Constitution is by definition legal, and that any change to the Constitution through the means spelled out in that document must therefore be legal. Hm. Can anyone even dispute that?
29-09-2016 22:51
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10157)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Nobody's even tried to refute my claim that the Constitution is by definition legal, and that any change to the Constitution through the means spelled out in that document must therefore be legal. Hm. Can anyone even dispute that?


Since your proposed amendment would effectively destroy everything else in the Constitution, I just don't see you getting the votes to pass it.


The Parrot Killer
29-09-2016 22:58
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5183)
jwoodward48 wrote: Nobody's even tried to refute my claim that the Constitution is by definition legal,

The California Supreme Court just recently declared the US Constitution illegal. They didn't cross the border. The border crossed them. The whole thing is going to have to be renegotiated, which means César Chavez will probably be the new face on the one dollar bill.

jwoodward48 wrote: ... and that any change to the Constitution through the means spelled out in that document must therefore be legal.

The problem is that the founding fathers used pen and ink and today's generation doesn't understand that they can't modify the Constitution through an app. Someone suggested "white out" but then someone else mentioned that that would only fix one copy.


jwoodward48 wrote:Hm. Can anyone even dispute that?

Is this about adding your "Thou shalt not exploiteth thy neighbor" deal?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
29-09-2016 23:19
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
No, it's about

Into the Night said:

To implement communism in the United States means throwing out the Constitution of the United States of America, the dissolution of the States and their constitutions, theft of private property, and the loss of liberty.

I am perfectly justified in defending the republic by any and all means possible.

Nothing prevents you from forming a commune of your own on your own property. I will even defend your right to do so. Nothing, however, gives you the right to subvert the United States of America or any State in that Union, or to replace their constitutions with your own form of government (or lack thereof).
30-09-2016 00:21
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
IBdaMann wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote: Nobody's even tried to refute my claim that the Constitution is by definition legal,

The California Supreme Court just recently declared the US Constitution illegal. They didn't cross the border. The border crossed them. The whole thing is going to have to be renegotiated, which means César Chavez will probably be the new face on the one dollar bill.


*sigh*

I meant, although you probably already know this, that any part of the Constitution that was put there through the channels it describes for doing so is legal.

You took it and... made a joke? Of course it's obvious that the Constitution is legal - it was ridiculous to even type, but it needed to be said, apparently.

jwoodward48 wrote: ... and that any change to the Constitution through the means spelled out in that document must therefore be legal.

The problem is that the founding fathers used pen and ink and today's generation doesn't understand that they can't modify the Constitution through an app. Someone suggested "white out" but then someone else mentioned that that would only fix one copy.


So, the pen-and-ink-and-paper copy sitting wherever? I don't see the 13th Amendment on there. I guess slavery is still legal.

I am talking about the means specified by the Constitution itself of changing the Constitution. That is, an amendment.


"Heads on a science
Apart" - Coldplay, The Scientist

IBdaMann wrote:
No, science doesn't insist that, ergo I don't insist that.

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
30-09-2016 15:07
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5183)
jwoodward48 wrote:*sigh*

I tried to make it obvious that I wasn't making a serious response.

Of course the Constitution can be modified to run under Marxist communism.. You are also capable of setting the all-time home run record.

jwoodward48 wrote:You took it and... made a joke?

That is always an option.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
30-09-2016 15:08
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Well, that just means that we haven't enlightened enough of the proletariat.
30-09-2016 20:22
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10157)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Well, that just means that we haven't enlightened enough of the proletariat.


Why do you need an amendment at all? What is preventing you from forming a commune?


The Parrot Killer
30-09-2016 20:29
spot
★★★★☆
(1204)


This is what we look like.
30-09-2016 20:38
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Why do you need capitalism everywhere? You'd be fine with a capital-mune somewhere, right?
30-09-2016 21:22
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10157)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Why do you need capitalism everywhere? You'd be fine with a capital-mune somewhere, right?


What the hell is a capital-mune?

I prefer a free market. It is the natural state of trade. You can't kill the free market, even if becomes a black market.

I prefer any system that allows as much openness in the free market as possible. It is self correcting. It is creation of wealth that benefits everybody, not just the guy that created it.

I do not believe markets need to be managed by anybody. What most people call capitalism.
---
Like I said. There is nothing preventing you from forming your own commune. You obviously feel you need to force others to form them also. What is your reasoning for this? What form do you expect your proposal to take?


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 30-09-2016 21:24
30-09-2016 21:52
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
It's a commune, except with capitalism.

Argument from natural-ness. Death is natural. Is it bad to prevent death?
30-09-2016 23:04
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10157)
jwoodward48 wrote:
It's a commune, except with capitalism.

WTF?? How do you have capitalism with a commune??? No one owns anything!
jwoodward48 wrote:
Argument from natural-ness. Death is natural. Is it bad to prevent death?

?


The Parrot Killer
30-09-2016 23:27
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
It's a commune, except with capitalism.

WTF?? How do you have capitalism with a commune??? No one owns anything!


If you are fine with communism being restricted to small communities, I'm suggesting that capitalism be restricted to small communities.

jwoodward48 wrote:
Argument from natural-ness. Death is natural. Is it bad to prevent death?

?


I prefer a free market. It is the natural state of trade. You can't kill the free market, even if becomes a black market.


the natural state of trade.


natural



"Heads on a science
Apart" - Coldplay, The Scientist

IBdaMann wrote:
No, science doesn't insist that, ergo I don't insist that.

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
01-10-2016 23:38
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10157)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
It's a commune, except with capitalism.

WTF?? How do you have capitalism with a commune??? No one owns anything!


If you are fine with communism being restricted to small communities, I'm suggesting that capitalism be restricted to small communities.


And how are you planning to implement converting free trade into a commune?


The Parrot Killer
02-10-2016 02:19
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
My point is that "why can't you just have your own tiny place" doesn't work as an argument.
02-10-2016 03:49
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5183)
jwoodward48 wrote:If you are fine with communism being restricted to small communities, I'm suggesting that capitalism be restricted to small communities.

Hold on a moment there, ye of poor English reading comprehension...

Into the Night never put any restriction on the size of the commune you were free to form yourself.

If you don't want a tiny commune but want to build a *HUGE* commune like the world has never seen, then get to it. Show Into the Night who's boss.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
02-10-2016 03:58
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
But then why can I not make a commune that takes up the entire US?

Also, given that amendments are a thing, this is possible and legal, albeit difficult.
02-10-2016 04:02
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5183)
jwoodward48 wrote:But then why can I not make a commune that takes up the entire US?

You can. Get to it.

jwoodward48 wrote:Also, given that amendments are a thing, this is possible and legal, albeit difficult.

Sure, just like the MLB home-run record.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
02-10-2016 21:04
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10157)
jwoodward48 wrote:
But then why can I not make a commune that takes up the entire US?

Also, given that amendments are a thing, this is possible and legal, albeit difficult.


For a commune to work, people will have to join it voluntarily. This is because they must give up all they own including any business they've built for the sake of the commune.

Do you really think everyone in the United States is going to join it voluntarily?

If you use law to force a commune, isn't that taking property by force? Don't you think there will be some resistance to that?


The Parrot Killer
02-10-2016 21:07
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
In the end, government is force. It's a trade-off between freedom and safety.

As you said, I support a peaceful socialisation - not a violent one. If socialism comes into existence, it will be because it has become supported and popular.
02-10-2016 21:40
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10157)
jwoodward48 wrote:
In the end, government is force. It's a trade-off between freedom and safety.

As you said, I support a peaceful socialisation - not a violent one. If socialism comes into existence, it will be because it has become supported and popular.


In that case, go for it.


The Parrot Killer
05-10-2016 15:05
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5183)
jwoodward48 wrote: No, I am not committing the fallacy of composition when I say that socialism can work. Showing that it usually doesn't work does not disprove my statement that it is possible for it to work.


Socialism can certainly work ... within a capitalism framework that can sufficiently support it.

If you expand the socialism to supplant the capitalism that supports it, then it obviously will fail.

Your fallacy is your argument that socialism can work without the capitalism it needs to support it.

Your fallacy is your argument that government should restrict/hinder/retard/kill the capitalism that supports it.

It is your vision that cannot work. Marxism is a cancer that kills capitalism and thus kills itself in the process.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
05-10-2016 15:29
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Well, gee, I guess I can't refute "you support cancer". You've totally won me over. [/sarcasm]

Why can't it work?
05-10-2016 22:33
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10157)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Well, gee, I guess I can't refute "you support cancer". You've totally won me over. [/sarcasm]

Why can't it work?


Socialism has no price discovery. Any money in a commune is essentially meaningless.

Capitalism has price discovery. Any money there has a value and unit of account.

In addition, socialism has little or no incentive to advance a product to be competitive anywhere. There is no need in the commune.

This means that socialism must trade with a capitalist system to give the money it uses a value and unit of account. Unfortunately, the products coming from the commune, although they do go through price discovery on the outside market, cannot compete effectively with better products produced elsewhere. The demand for the commune's products is low, hence the price is low. So low that it costs more to produce the commodity in the first place (since the commune had not incentive to make things efficient either).

This means the commune must steal to survive. Since it cannot produce everything itself, what it can't produce must be stolen from a capitalist system that does produce it.


The Parrot Killer
Page 1 of 212>





Join the debate whats warming the world:

Remember me

▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact